The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

[Michael 345]

And so you condemn the masses for the actions of the few.

I guess, by that logic, you should be killed because you could "possibly be ready to initiate a new Crusade"...

I would consider the masses have been condemned by the terrorist not by me

If you stood at the boarders with the power to allow or reject a hoard of refugees of which you know some are terrorist what percentage would you be comfortable in allowing in?

Remember you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy

Would you let in

• All of the masses thinking only 1% may be a terrorist? Every 1,000 gives you 10 terrorist
• 100% of the masses where all are considered terrorist?
• Somewhere between? 5% 10% 50%?
• Reject all because you don't know?

I guess, by that logic, you should be killed because you could possibly be ready to initiate a new Crusade

That could be applied to anyone????

I don't see logic there

 

[Ophiolite]

"I guess, by that logic, you should be killed because you could possibly be ready to initiate a new Crusade"

That could be applied to anyone????

I don't see logic there

No. That's rather the point. You don't see the logic there, nor is it present in your own argument.

 

[spidergoat]

Ah but those sneaky ones do want war and guess what they hide with the genuine refugees

No one is hidden, they all get vetted.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Simple Questions:

Why does a chemical engineer, her husband (also a chemical engineer) and there daughter need to stop there studies and be kicked out of the nation simply because they came from Iran? These are hardworking productive law abiding people with good skills, would this not pass trumps "well vetted" claim?

 

[Michael 345]

No. That's rather the point. You don't see the logic there, nor is it present in your own argument.

Are you counting the series of questions I put as a argument?

Do you wish to respond to any of the questions?

 

[Michael 345]

Simple Questions:

Why does a chemical engineer, her husband (also a chemical engineer) and there daughter need to stop there studies and be kicked out of the nation simply because they came from Iran? These are hardworking productive law abiding people with good skills, would this not pass trumps "well vetted" claim?

Did this happen?

How long had they been studying in the US?

How much remaining study was there?

Had any discrepancy been found in their original application?

Since you appear to be quoting a news item what follow up was taken by the reporter re requesting details of any explanation given to the family?

 

[billvon]

If you stood at the boarders with the power to allow or reject a hoard of refugees of which you know some are terrorist what percentage would you be comfortable in allowing in?

I wouldn't allow anyone in until they had been vetted. Fortunately they are.

If there was no way to know? I'd allow in a population that was no different - or better - than our own. In other words, if the population had fewer than .9% of (potential) criminals in it, then letting them in would reduce, overall, crime in America.

 

[Michael 345]

No one is hidden, they all get vetted.

So Trump is doing what is already in place may be a little stronger?

 

[Kittamaru]

I would consider the masses have been condemned by the terrorist not by me

If you stood at the boarders with the power to allow or reject a hoard of refugees of which you know some are terrorist what percentage would you be comfortable in allowing in?

Remember you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy

Would you let in

• All of the masses thinking only 1% may be a terrorist? Every 1,000 gives you 10 terrorist
• 100% of the masses where all are considered terrorist?
• Somewhere between? 5% 10% 50%?
• Reject all because you don't know?

I guess, by that logic, you should be killed because you could possibly be ready to initiate a new Crusade

That could be applied to anyone????

I don't see logic there

Lets reverse it:

If you stood at the boarders with the power to allow or reject a hoard of refugees of which you know many will die unless they escape their current situation, what percentage would you be comfortable in allowing to die?

 

[Michael 345]

I wouldn't allow anyone in until they had been vetted. Fortunately they are.

If there was no way to know? I'd allow in a population that was no different - or better - than our own. In other words, if the population had fewer than .9% of (potential) criminals in it, then letting them in would reduce, overall, crime in America.

What part of "no way to know" did you not follow?

You then follow up by "knowing" only 0.9% of the population are potential criminals.

 

[Michael 345]

Lets reverse it:

If you stood at the boarders with the power to allow or reject a hoard of refugees of which you know many will die unless they escape their current situation, what percentage would you be comfortable in allowing to die?

Lets NOT reverse it until you answer first.

 

[billvon]

What part of "no way to know" did you not follow?
You then follow up by "knowing" only 0.9% of the population are potential criminals.

You asked:
=============
Would you let in

• All of the masses thinking only 1% may be a terrorist? Every 1,000 gives you 10 terrorist
• 100% of the masses where all are considered terrorist?
• Somewhere between? 5% 10% 50%?
• Reject all because you don't know?

=============

Answer: I would let in all thinking less than .9% would be criminals.

 

[Kittamaru]

Lets NOT reverse it until you answer first.

Sure - I would let them in. I would do my best to vet them, and have some basic processes in place to look for possible mental health issues. Follow ups, et al, to ensure integration is going well.

But, yes, I would let them in, knowing full well that there is a risk in doing so, but that not doing so is morally reprehensible.

Your turn.

 

[Michael 345]

Sure - I would let them in. I would do my best to vet them, and have some basic processes in place to look for possible mental health issues. Follow ups, et al, to ensure integration is going well.

But, yes, I would let them in, knowing full well that there is a risk in doing so, but that not doing so is morally reprehensible.

Your turn.

I didn't mention vetting but OK will give you that

No kudos for taking a risk

Having thought about my response I would NOT take any risk and turn all away

A slight modification would be to take all children below say age six as a rough guide

This would be under conditions

• The parents must agree to the child being brought up in a household with no religion
• They might be reunited with their child if the caring family agrees
• To be reunited the family must be cleared to live in the US and must be doing so crime free
• The child would be told of their origin on becoming 21 and the family must respect the now adult if they choose not to recognise their parents

But yes I would turn the masses away

At the personal level you do understand that in any dangerous situation you are not required to do anything which puts you at risk

Akin to this many laws (so called Good Samaritan laws) are in place to ease the thought of being taken to court if you act in good faith to help someone but it doesn't work out well

Scale-up to looking after the country I think I would consider I was not a good custodian of the populations safety if I let the masses in

So I would turn them away

Also take into account the notion of sovereignty of the country

If this were not in place it would be possible for any country to go over any border and take out the nutcase running the place

It still possible but not done except by terrorist who have no problem in attempting to enforce twisted idolatry

 

[Michael 345]

By the by what happened to all the Chicken 'The Sky Will Fall' Little celeb snowflakes who would move to Canada if the unthinkable happened?

Didn't see any relocation trucks on the road or are they still packing?

 

[billvon]

At the personal level you do understand that in any dangerous situation you are not required to do anything which puts you at risk

You are correct. You are not required to show any humanity, compassion or empathy at all. Some of us, however, feel that those are worthy traits.

My grandparents showed up here as refugees from the aftermath of the Irish potato famine. They showed up without any visas or invitations, indeed with no guarantee they would be accepted at all. But the US did accept them, and they had two daughters. One of them was my mother.

Most people in the US have a similar story. No, the US was not "required" to take them in. But I (and most Americans) are very glad that the US did - and we want that to continue.

 

[Michael 345]

You are correct. You are not required to show any humanity, compassion or empathy at all. Some of us, however, feel that those are worthy traits.

Yes very worthy traits

Very worthwhile putting them into action

In dangerous situations however you may turn into the dead hero

Dial back your showing off your excellent traits and consider your own safety before launching into action

My grandparents showed up here as refugees from the aftermath of the Irish potato famine. They showed up without any visas or invitations, indeed with no guarantee they would be accepted at all.

Sounds like a good deal for America accepting them

However a potato famine would hardly be considered a risk to America with radical idiots fleeing the famine trying to infiltrate the country to cause harm

 

[billvon]

Yes very worthy traits
Very worthwhile putting them into action
In dangerous situations however you may turn into the dead hero

No "hero" about it. Dead human, perhaps. Life is risky.

Sounds like a good deal for America accepting them
However a potato famine would hardly be considered a risk to America with radical idiots fleeing the famine trying to infiltrate the country to cause harm

You wouldn't know that listening to the rhetoric of the time. Irish were violent, lazy drunks who were always being arrested. "That's why they call it a paddy wagon!" Over half of the arrests in NYC during that time were of Irish. "Irish need not apply" was posted in employment ads, and sometimes expanded to "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" just to make it clear what they thought of Irish. Everyone knew that to walk into an Irish bar meant injury or worse. Benjamin Disraeli wrote that "The Irish hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. . . . Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood."

In other words, they were the Mexicans and Muslims of their time.

Fortunately, we were a better people back then, and welcomed them anyway. And we are all better off for doing that.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I would consider the masses have been condemned by the terrorist not by me

If you stood at the boarders with the power to allow or reject a hoard of refugees of which you know some are terrorist what percentage would you be comfortable in allowing in?

Remember you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy

exactly...
If you stood in any shopping mall and wanted to make the same sort of assessment who would you pick as being intent on harming you?

The guys with a beard perhaps?
The guys pretending to be Christian evangelists?

or the child with an overly bulky jacket on....
who?

You see this is why the terrorists have won...
Paranoia cripples every one...

 

[ElectricFetus]

Did this happen?

Yes trump sign it today.

How long had they been studying in the US?

1.5 years

How much remaining study was there?

for a Phd at least another 2 years

Had any discrepancy been found in their original application?

No they must reply there visa every couple of mouths, I think she said it was a J-1, I guess it would be because I distinctly remember them saying their daughter was a J-2.

Since you appear to be quoting a news item what follow up was taken by the reporter re requesting details of any explanation given to the family?

Once again trump signed it today.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/polit...executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/